P. MAMATHA Vs. P. RAMASUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in O.S.No.103/2010.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

(3.) The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract, viz. agreement of sale dated 12.04.2005. The plaintiff had contended in the plaint that she had entered into an agreement with defendant No.1, to purchase the immovable property bearing Sy.657 measuring 8.55 acres of Kolagal village, Ballari Taluk and District, which is the suit schedule property. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.29,00,000/-, while advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid under the agreement. Defendant No.1 had earlier executed a general Power of Attorney in favour defendant No.2. However, defendant No.2 was present when the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No.1. Thereafter, on 25.03.2008 defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and her husband and sought payment of further amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. On 25.03.2008, the plaintiff made further payment of Rs.6,00,000/- and an endorsement was written by defendant No.1 on the agreement, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.6,00,000/-. However, despite repeated requests and demand, defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband learnt that defendant No.2, had clandestinely executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, only to defraud the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 17.06.2010 calling upon defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in her favour by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is contended that defendants postponed the execution of the sale deed. Finally, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract.